ARTURO L. SICAT, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. GREGORIO E. ARIOLA, JR., RESPONDENT.

Sicat versus Ariola

The Case

This is an administrative case for disbarment. Arturo Sicat, a board member of the provincial council of Rizal, charged Attorney Gregorio Ariola, the municipal administrator of Cainta, Rizal, with violating the Code of Professional Responsibility through fraud, deceit, and falsehood. The heart of the charge is a notarization: Ariola notarized a special power of attorney purportedly signed by one Juanito Benitez on January 4, 2001, when Benitez had in fact already died on October 25, 2000. The case matters because it fixes the standard of conduct for lawyer-notaries and shows that a notary's acknowledgment is a solemn act, not a routine formality, and that a false notarization can cost a lawyer his entire career.

Procedural History

The complainant filed an affidavit-complaint directly with the Supreme Court. The respondent answered, raising forum-shopping because similar charges had been filed with the Civil Service Commission and the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon, and those complaints had been dismissed. The Supreme Court referred the complaint to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation, report, and recommendation. The IBP found that the respondent had notarized the special power of attorney long after Benitez was dead, that he could not feign ignorance because he personally knew Benitez through his work on the prequalification and awards committee of Cainta, and that the notarization was part of a scheme to defraud the municipality. The IBP recommended revocation of the respondent's notarial commission and suspension from the practice of law for one year. The case then returned to the Supreme Court, which reviewed the records and rendered its own resolution.

Facts

The Municipality of Cainta entered into a contract with J.C. Benitez Architect and Technical Management, represented by Juanito Benitez, for the construction of low-cost houses. The architectural and engineering designs cost 11,000,000 pesos, and two consultants were engaged to supervise the project. For their services, the municipality issued a check dated January 10, 2001 in the amount of 3,700,000 pesos, payable to J.C. Benitez Architects and Technical Management and to Cesar Goco. That check was received and encashed by Goco by virtue of a special power of attorney notarized by the respondent.

Benitez died on October 25, 2000. Yet the respondent notarized the special power of attorney on January 4, 2001, more than two months after the death, and his notarial acknowledgment declared that Benitez appeared before him and acknowledged the instrument as his free and voluntary act.

In his defense, the respondent claimed that Benitez had actually signed the special power of attorney as early as May 12, 2000, and that only through inadvertence was it notarized on January 4, 2001. He added that the document was unnecessary because a similar special power of attorney had already been signed in favor of Goco, and that he cancelled the questioned document the same day he notarized it, so that legally no public document existed. He never disputed, however, that he notarized the document on that date, nor that Benitez was already dead when he did so.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent is guilty of gross misconduct for notarizing a special power of attorney purportedly executed by a person who was already dead, in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• Whether or not the respondent's defenses, that the document was unnecessary and prejudiced no one and that he cancelled it the same day, exonerate him from administrative liability.
• Whether or not the penalty recommended by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines is the appropriate penalty.

Applicable Provisions

Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

The Court held that the respondent's false notarization was a serious breach of this rule.

Rule 10.01 of Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in Court, nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.

The Court relied on this rule, applied in the earlier case of Zaballero versus Montalvan, where a lawyer notarized documents making it appear that a deceased person had executed them.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court found the respondent guilty. He never disputed that he notarized the special power of attorney on January 4, 2001, nor that Benitez had died on October 25, 2000. His notarial acknowledgment declared that Benitez appeared before him and acknowledged the instrument as his free and voluntary act. The Court held that the respondent clearly lied and intentionally perpetuated an untruthful statement. Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, or routinary act; it converts a private document into a public instrument, making it admissible in evidence without the necessity of preliminary proof of its authenticity and due execution. As a lawyer and officer of the court, oath-bound, he was expected to act at all times in accordance with law and ethics.

On the second issue, the Court held that the defense of superfluity did not exonerate him. His assertion of falsehood in a public document contravened one of the most cherished tenets of the legal profession and potentially cast suspicion on the truthfulness of every notarial act. As municipal administrator, he should have known his responsibility as a notary public and as a public officer, for a public office is a public trust. The Court stressed that without the fraudulent special power of attorney, the erring parties could not have encashed the check for 3,700,000 pesos and could not have foisted a spurious contract on the public, to the extreme prejudice of the municipality he served.

On the third issue, the Court found the penalty recommended by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines too light and imposed the heavier penalty of disbarment.

Doctrine

A lawyer commissioned as a notary public must not authenticate a document unless the person who signed it is the very same person who executed it and personally appeared before him to attest to its contents and truth. Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, or routinary act; it converts a private document into a public instrument and carries the public's confidence in its integrity. A notary who acknowledges a document executed by a person already dead commits falsehood, violating Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 and Rule 10.01 of Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and the fact that the document was unnecessary or caused no apparent prejudice is no defense. A public office is a public trust, and a lawyer who is also a public officer bears a heightened responsibility.

Disposition

The Supreme Court found Attorney Gregorio Ariola, Jr. guilty of gross misconduct and disbarred him from the practice of law, ordering that copies of the resolution be furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant and brought to the immediate attention of the Ombudsman.

Remember This

Memorize this line: notarization is not an empty, meaningless, or routinary act, and a notary who acknowledges a document signed by a dead man commits falsehood. Examiners use this case on the duties of notaries public, on Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 and Rule 10.01 of Canon 10, and on why disbarment, not mere suspension, fits a false notarization.